|
|
|
|
Qui tam
|
| |
|
| |
In common law, a writ of qui tam is a writ whereby a private individual who assists a prosecution can receive all or part of any penalty imposed. Its name is an abbreviation of the Latin phrase qui tam pro domino rege quam pro se ipso in hac parte sequitur, meaning "[he] who sues in this matter for the king as [well as] for himself."
The writ fell into disuse in England and Wales following the Common Informers Act 1951 but, , remains current in the United States under the False Claims Act, et seq., which allows for a private individual, or "whistleblower", with knowledge of past or present fraud committed against the U.S.
Discussion
Ask a question about 'Qui tam' Start a new discussion about 'Qui tam' Answer questions from other users |
Encyclopedia
In common law, a writ of qui tam is a writ whereby a private individual who assists a prosecution can receive all or part of any penalty imposed. Its name is an abbreviation of the Latin phrase qui tam pro domino rege quam pro se ipso in hac parte sequitur, meaning "[he] who sues in this matter for the king as [well as] for himself."
The writ fell into disuse in England and Wales following the Common Informers Act 1951 but, , remains current in the United States under the False Claims Act, et seq., which allows for a private individual, or "whistleblower", with knowledge of past or present fraud committed against the U.S. federal government to bring suit on its behalf. This provision allows a private person, known as a “relator”, to bring a lawsuit on behalf of the United States, where the private person has information that the named defendant has knowingly submitted or caused the submission of false or fraudulent claims to the United States. The relator need not have been personally harmed by the defendant’s conduct. The information must not be public knowledge.
The False Claims Acts
The False Claims Act provides incentive to relators by granting them between 15% and 25% of any award or settlement amount. In addition, the statute provides an award of the relator's attorney's fees, making qui tam actions a popular topic for the plaintiff's bar. An individual bringing suit pro se, that is, without the representation of a lawyer, may not bring a qui tam action under the False Claims Act. See, for example, United States ex Rel. Lu v. Ou, 368 F.3d 773 (7th Cir. 2004).
Once a relator brings suit on behalf of the government, the Department of Justice, in conjunction with a U.S. Attorney for the district in which the suit was filed, have the option to intervene in the suit. If the government does intervene, it will notify the company or person being sued that a claim has been filed. Qui tam actions are filed under seal, which has to be partially lifted by the court to allow this type of disclosure. The seal prohibits the defendant from disclosing even the mere existence of the case to anyone, including its shareholders, a fact which may cause conflicts with the defendant's obligation under Securities & Exchange Commission or stock exchange regulations that require it to disclose lawsuits that could materially affect stock prices. The government may subsequently, without disclosing the identity of the plaintiff or any of the facts, begin taking discovery from the defendant.
If the government does not decide to participate in a qui tam action, the relator may proceed alone without the Department of Justice, though such cases historically have a much lower success rate. Relators who do prevail in such cases will get a higher relator's share, about 25% to 30%. It is conventionally thought that the government chooses legal matters it would prosecute because the government would only want to get involved in what it believes are winning cases.
History
Qui tam actions were first used in 13th century England as a way to enforce the King's laws. They existed in the United States in colonial times, and were embraced by the first U.S. Congress as a way to enforce the laws when the new federal government had virtually no law enforcement officers. The False Claims Act was passed in 1863 during the U.S. Civil War, but was substantially weakened in 1943 during World War II while the government rushed to sign large military procurement contracts. It was strengthened again in 1986 after a period of military expansion at a time when there were many stories of defense contractor price gouging.
The practice fell into disrepute in England in the 19th century by which time it was principally used to enforce laws related to Christian Sunday observance. It was brought to an effective end by the Common Informers Act 1951 but, in 2007, there were proposals to introduce legal provision on the U.S. model back to the United Kingdom.
Jonathan Bing has introduced a bill to create a qui tam for New York State.
See also
Bibliography
- For a history of qui tam actions, see
External links
|
| |
|
|
